Corrected Judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit — USA v. Staveley (Dkt. 135, D.R.I. No. 1:20-mj-00034, docketed in No. 1:20-cr-00074)

Summary

A corrected judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in No. 22-1969, David Staveley v. United States, entered January 3, 2024 and filed January 4, 2024 as Document 135 in Case 1:20-cr-00074-WES-LDA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The appeal arose from a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding. The court denies Staveley's requests for appointment of counsel and, after considering his responses to an order to show cause, dismisses the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Any remaining pending motions not mooted are denied.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Case 1:20-cr-00074-WES-LDA Document135 _ Filed 01/04/24" Page 1 of 2 PagelD #:
1252

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit

No. 22-1969
DAVID STAVELEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
UNITED STATES,

Respondent - Appellee.

Before

Gelpi, Selya and Thompson,
Circuit Judges.

CORRECTED JUDGMENT*

Entered: January 3, 2024

Defendant-appellant David A. Staveley filed a notice of appeal in the underlying 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 proceeding, purporting to challenge an order "den[ying] a Certificate of Appealability" and
a "judgment entered" December 2, 2022. After the appeal was opened, this court entered an order
directing Staveley to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of finality,
where it did not appear that a final judgment had entered or that the appeal properly could proceed
on an interlocutory basis. Staveley filed two supplements responding to the court's order to show
cause, as well as two motions to appoint counsel and other motions.

As an initial matter, Staveley's requests for appointment of counsel are denied. See Bucci
v. United States, 662 F.3d 18, 34 (1st Cir. 2011) ("[P]etitioners have no constitutional right to
counsel in [habeas corpus] proceedings."). Having carefully considered Staveley's responses to the
court's order to show cause and relevant portions of the record, we conclude that dismissal is in
order. See generally 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 & 1292 (statutory finality principles); see also Fabrica de
Muebles J.J. Alvarez, Incorporado v. Inversiones Mendoza, Inc., 682 F.3d 26, 32 (1st Cir. 2012)

* Corrected Judgment issued to amend text of judgment.
Case 1:20-cr-00074-WES-LDA Document135_ Filed 01/04/24 Page 2 of 2 PagelD #:
1253

("The party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of demonstrating the existence of federal
jurisdiction.").

Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed. See Ist Cir. R. 27.0(c) (court may dismiss at
any time when appellate jurisdiction is lacking). Any remaining pending motions, to the extent not
mooted by the foregoing, are denied.

By the Court:

Maria R. Hamilton, Clerk

ce:

David Staveley

Lee H. Vilker
Terrence P. Donnelly
Lauren S. Zurier


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.rid.49679.135.0.pdf

Size

183,009 bytes

SHA-256

62dac5c29e42aa56090a42dbb5659be11b2befdb1f8bb0783775fe7fbd9b902d

Our copy

gov.uscourts.rid.49679.135.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)